Not quite, this is a strictly manual focus lens. Nikon's widest aperture to be exact.

Drum roll.....It's the Nikkor 50 1.2.

Chikoo ,not really sure where you are seeing the shake or blur here as I took these under 'ideal' shutter speed.

That being said, because I shot this lens at its widest setting, being 1.2, there may have been some slight focus miss. The depth of field is so thin that you can see in the selfie shot the Nikon logo is in focus but the D600 emblem is just creamy. Add to that, most lenses are not at their best wide open.

That's the beauty, and I guess the pitfall, of this particular lens. It's not sharper than my 85 or the standard zoom; heck ,the aberration and spherochtomatism is not well corrected at all.

But this lens is not about being the sharpest, although it's not a bad performer by any means.It's about how it makes the bokeh looks.

Wnat to seem ore of this lens...Can you do a cityscape or landscape with plenty of specular highlights?

I iwll try but my first impressions so far is that the corners of this lens wide open is quite bad, which leads me to believe that there might be some field curvature issues. Vignetting is super bad too.

Not quite, this is a strictly manual focus lens. Nikon's widest aperture to be exact.

Drum roll.....It's the Nikkor 50 1.2.

Chikoo ,not really sure where you are seeing the shake or blur here as I took these under 'ideal' shutter speed.

That being said, because I shot this lens at its widest setting, being 1.2, there may have been some slight focus miss. The depth of field is so thin that you can see in the selfie shot the Nikon logo is in focus but the D600 emblem is just creamy. Add to that, most lenses are not at their best wide open.

That's the beauty, and I guess the pitfall, of this particular lens. It's not sharper than my 85 or the standard zoom; heck ,the aberration and spherochtomatism is not well corrected at all.

But this lens is not about being the sharpest, although it's not a bad performer by any means.It's about how it makes the bokeh looks.

You can certainly use this for low light recording. I'm using the 50 1.8 for low light recording and sometimes I want to be able to go a little lower so I won't have to crank up the ISO.
I think you're right about the lens not being best at its widest. From my experience, I notice the 50 does better at 2ish than 1.8.

I iwll try but my first impressions so far is that the corners of this lens wide open is quite bad, which leads me to believe that there might be some field curvature issues. Vignetting is super bad too.

Have limited recourse for softness though when it comes to other areas, the characteristics are easily handled. I don't mind the softness these days at the corners, I tend to soften them and add vignetting anyhow. How the lens does with highlights and those areas before and after the focus point become interesting. Lightroom is pretty amazing for lens distortions and light falloff.

Well for one I didn't focus on those things, so I wanna take a guess that those were probably just the product of the shallow depth of field. You can see sort of the same effect on the Apple logo in the second pic.

But considering that what I tried to focus on were sharp more or less, unless the logo moved themselves, I'd say it was just the depth of field. I dunno...someone else?

Well for one I didn't focus on those things, so I wanna take a guess that those were probably just the product of the shallow depth of field. You can see sort of the same effect on the Apple logo in the second pic.

But considering that what I tried to focus on were sharp more or less, unless the logo moved themselves, I'd say it was just the depth of field. I dunno...someone else?

I have seen this happen before, and my take on it is that it is motion blur, but the stabilization mechanism takes care of the objects in focus, and the ones out of focus not so much. Just a hunch.